Stian: To keep it as a verb in past tense. But perhaps this naming style is not so good in the inverse direction, which is pointing towards the future?

prov:wasQuotedFrom

prov:wasQuotedBy

quotedAs

*Dani: ->+0. Other relationships using "By" denote agency. I suggest to rename it wasQuotedIn.

Oh no, this is a sensitive one for us two! The range of the inverse will be the quote entity (the paragraph), so you can't say "bible quoted in" - there is nothing more to be inside.

What about prov:quotedAs ?

Dani: +1 for quotedAs

Tim: quotedAs seems good.

Stian: +1 quotedAs

prov:wasRevisionOf

prov:hadRevision

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasEndedBy

prov:ended

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasGeneratedBy

prov:generated

-

Dani: +1

prov:generated

prov:wasGeneratedBy

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasInformedBy

prov:informed

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasInvalidatedBy

prov:invalidated

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasStartedBy

prov:started

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasAssociatedWith

prov:wasAssociateFor

-

Dani: +1

prov:wasAttributedTo

prov:contributed

-

Dani: +1

prov:actedOnBehalfOf

prov:responsibleFor

(TL)prov:hadDelegate

Dani: +1 responsibleFor

Stian: +1 prov:hadDelegate (several in the office agreed on ":aBoss prov:hadDelegate :aSecretary" where the secretary could read the email for the boss)

prov:qualifiedAssociation

prov:associatedActivity

qualifiedAttributionOf

Dani: +0

prov:qualifiedAttribution

prov:attributedEntity

-

Dani: +1

prov:qualifiedCommunication

prov:informedActivity

qualifiedCommunicationOf

Dani: -1. It is very similar to wasInformedBy. I think that something like "qualifiedCommunicationOf" is better

prov:qualifiedDerivation

prov:derivedEntity

qualifiedDerivationOf

Dani: +0

prov:qualifiedEnd

prov:endedActivity

qualifiedEndOf

Dani:I prefer qualifiedEndOf

prov:qualifiedGeneration

prov:generatedEntity

qualifiedGenerationOf

Dani: I suggest qualifiedGenerationOf. "generated" and "generatedEntity" could lead to confussion.

prov:qualifiedInsertion

prov:insertedToDictionary

qualifiedQuotationOf

Dani: -1. It could be confused with wasQuotedBy. I suggest to rename it qualifiedQuotationOf.

prov:qualifiedQuotation

prov:quotedByEntity

-

Dani: +1

prov:qualifiedRemoval

prov:removedFromDictionary

qualifiedRemovalOf

Dani: +0. rename it to qualifiedRemovalOf

prov:qualifiedResponsibility

prov:responsibleAgent

qualifiedResponsabilityOf

Dani: +0 I suggest qualifiedResponsabilityOf

prov:qualifiedRevision

prov:revisedEntity

qualifiedRevisionOf

Dani: +1 I suggest qualifiedRevisionOf (to keep the same pattern)

prov:qualifiedSource

prov:sourcingEntity

qualifiedSourceOf

Dani: +0 I suggest qualifiedSourceOf

prov:qualifiedStart

prov:startedActivity

qualifiedStartOf

Dani: +0. I prefer qualifiedStartOf. It can be confused with "wasStartedBy"

prov:qualifiedTrace

prov:tracedEntity

qualifiedTraceOf

Dani: +0. I suggest qualifiedTraceOf

prov:qualifiedUsage

prov:consumingActivity

cualifiedUsageOf

*Dani: +0. I suggest cualifiedUsageOf.

Stian (also applicable for previous rows): I have no hard feelings about any of these. I removed the "qualified" prefix so that it would somewhat match up with the outgoing prov:activity/prov:entity/.... This will effectively point to the subject of the reified triple. I agree we should be consistent with the pattern. (My pattern was prov:.*(Activity|Entity|Agent) )

So "qualifiedDerivationOf" would read wrong to me - because it is :e1 we derive from, not :e2. I also struggled in that these need to be specific per involvement type to be proper inverses of the specific qualified*, so you can't say have a general prov:qualifyingEntity.

Dani: my concern is that derivedEntity could be confused with other properties like "derived" (although domain and range would be different).

I don't think that "qualifiedDerivationOf" is wrong, since it it the qualified Derivation for e2. I don't see that implying that e2 is the source of the derivation.

prov:involvee

prov:involvement

-

Dani: +1

prov:activity

prov:activityInvolvement

activityInvolvementOf activityOfInvolvement

*Dani: +0.

Stian: no, not "of" - as whatever involvement will be the right hand side. The activity is not an activity-involvement of the involvement.

*Dani: +1. *Stian:Yes, wasPlanOf is probably better, as the range will be to some Involvement

prov:hadRole

prov:wasRoleIn

-

Dani: +1

prov:hadUsage

prov:wasUsedInDerivation

prov:usageOfDerivation

*Dani: +1: Why not "usedInDerivation"?

Stian:This is the equivalent of prov:generatedAsDerivation above. I think I added 'was' to clarify the direction - the Usage did not "use". However you can argue the Generation did not "generate" either - so they